« Topics
1234
Inspector Sands13,824 posts since 25 Aug 2004
How much would be saved be using less people, This was why unions hated it because new tech means less people

Yes, I understand how it saved money. My point was that a small company like Channel would have shelled out (comparatively) a lot for the kit, but how long would the savings in terms of staff have taken to recoup?
62305823,554 posts since 19 Aug 2005
How much would be saved be using less people, This was why unions hated it because new tech means less people

Yes, I understand how it saved money. My point was that a small company like Channel would have shelled out (comparatively) a lot for the kit, but how long would the savings in terms of staff have taken to recoup?


IS it possible Channel was the test case? with other ITV station helping out just to see what the results where?
62305823,554 posts since 19 Aug 2005
IS it possible Channel was the test case? with other ITV station helping out just to see what the results where?

I doubt it, why experiment with the poorest station?


Of course place like Channel and Grampain are remote and would benefit the most for the introduction, I doubt there would be any real benafit for Thames?

Did the French have ENG in the late 70s?
Richard927 posts since 22 Apr 2012
Granada North West Today
IS it possible Channel was the test case? with other ITV station helping out just to see what the results where?

I doubt it, why experiment with the poorest station?


Of course place like Channel and Grampain are remote and would benefit the most for the introduction, I doubt there would be any real benafit for Thames?



I think not having to develop film would have been a substantial benefit for all TV companies.
WW Update4,835 posts since 6 Feb 2007
Did the French have ENG in the late 70s?


According to THIS source, French television networks began to experiment with ENG technology in the mid-1970s, but it wasn't until 1978-1979 that TF1 and Antenne 2 began producing their national news primarily using ENG.

As for the regional news, THIS source (PDF format; see page 53) states that the FR3 station in Marseille was "one of the first" French regional stations to be equipped with ENG technology in December 1978.
Last edited by WW Update on 12 August 2013 1:10am
WW Update4,835 posts since 6 Feb 2007
The barriers to introduction were probably far lower for Channel TV. Famously it was the only ITV station not to go on strike in 1979 as the workers were perfectly aware such a move could have bankrupted the company


I'm wondering: Since the Channel Islands are technically not a part of the United Kingdom, but rather Crown Dependencies, were the employees of Channel TV even union members? Do British unions operate there?
Markymark7,074 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
The barriers to introduction were probably far lower for Channel TV. Famously it was the only ITV station not to go on strike in 1979 as the workers were perfectly aware such a move could have bankrupted the company, so they'd be more likely to go with new technology which would make running the station more efficient. Also, if you think Grampian have distance issues, try jumping between islands.

That is a good point, though I assume that there was still a lot of moving stuff around on boats, but tape rather than film? Did they have video links from the smaller islands?

ENG was cheaper and more efficient than film but presumably the initial outlay for the equipment would have been quite high. I wonder how big the investment was and how long it took for the savings to pay off?


In Channel's case they used RCA kit initally, RCA had their European broadcast division base on Jersey, you can put two and two together Cool
Markymark7,074 posts since 13 Dec 2004
Meridian (North) South Today
IS it possible Channel was the test case? with other ITV station helping out just to see what the results where?

I doubt it, why experiment with the poorest station?


Of course place like Channel and Grampain are remote and would benefit the most for the introduction, I doubt there would be any real benafit for Thames?



I think not having to develop film would have been a substantial benefit for all TV companies.


Yes, that was the prime motive. There was still the requirement to bike the tapes back to a studio, or inject point, it wasn't until the mid 80s, that SHF links started to get used to send material back to base, and of course opening the Pandora's Box of pointless live reports with nothing to say from doorsteps etc Amen

TVS used a helicopter as a quickly deployable SHF mid point, it cost a fortune to run, but worked brilliantly.
Then of course from the early 90s satellite uplinks became viable, and today we're moving onto 3/4G.
noggin14,544 posts since 26 Jun 2001
How much would be saved be using less people, This was why unions hated it because new tech means less people

Yes, I understand how it saved money. My point was that a small company like Channel would have shelled out (comparatively) a lot for the kit, but how long would the savings in terms of staff have taken to recoup?


It may have made more rather than less sense for Channel. Film is expensive to buy and process, can't be re-used and the telecine machines used to transfer it to video were pretty expensive.

Film therefore had very high daily running costs compared to ENG. Film was also slower to use (as you had to allow time for processing before you could start editing, and you couldn't send it via a link (as you could ENG-shot stuff)

I suspect the major reduction in daily running costs offset the cost of buying kit, particularly if you were looking at a new telecine purchase. (Channel were very late to go colour - did they actually go to colour film for news before going ENG?)